Category: Abortion

So I kind of went on a tear on Facebook the other day. I flipped out just a little bit. Here’s what I said: “When certain people assume that “women” all believe the same things and support the same issues I get really, really irritated. It’s patronizing and ANTI-FEMINIST to act like all women think the same way and have the same opinions.”
What brought this on? The sanctifying of the latest liberal media darling, Wendy Davis. As Kirsten Powers stated, I don’t stand with Wendy Davis. She does not speak for me, nor does she speak for a majority of women, and I am tired of reading articles that assert that women as a group embrace all of the same interests and convictions.
Kirsten Powers cites a recent National Journal poll in which 50% of women FAVORED a ban on abortions after 20 weeks. According to Nate Silver, more women than men support such a ban! Even 33% of Democrats support it–a sizable minority that Democratic leadership would do well to note.
Seventeen of my friends liked my Facebook status–several of them liberal women, I am pleased to report–indicating that I’m not the only one who doesn’t like being told what I think or what I should think.
I didn’t stop with the Facebook status, though. Since clearly there is a lot of misinformation out there about who is against abortion (hint: it’s not exclusively old white Republican men) I started posting information about surprising (that is, if you are close-minded and like to put people in boxes according to categories) groups that oppose abortion. And I would like to share some of those groups with you.
1. Feminists for Life: “Women deserve better than abortion.”
2. Democrats for Life: “We believe in the fundamental worth, dignity, and equality of all people. We believe that the protection of human life is the foundation of human right authentic freedom, and good government.”
3. National Black Pro-life Coalition: “The National Black ProLife Coalition is a network of prolife and pro-family organizations committed to restoring a culture that celebrates Life and Family cultivating Hope in the black community.”
4. Pro-life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians: “To challenge the notion of abortion as acceptable, to bear witness to the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Trangendered (GLBT) community that abortion rights and GLBT rights are not one and the same, and to work towards those alternatives that are life-affirming as well as pro-woman.”
5. Atheistic and Agnostic Pro-lifers: “… because life is all there is and all that matters, and abortion destroys the life of an innocent human being.“
6. New Wave Feminists: “New Wave Feminists are here to take feminism back from those who have corrupted it. Sometime before we were born our womanhood was traded in for a handful of birth control pills, the “privilege” to pose for playboy, and the “right” to abort our children so we could work a desk job. We embrace the early American feminism of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, which was righteous, virtuous, intelligent and moral.”
7. Secular Pro-life: “If you are pro-life because abortion violates the Constitutional right to life, science shows that human life begins at conception, abortion hurts women, or for any other non-religious reason: make yourself at home! Here you will meet like-minded atheists, theists, and agnostics who are eager to save lives and fight the media portrayal of pro-lifers as “religious extremists.””
8. Libertarians for Life: “Libertarianism’s basic principle is that each of us has the obligation not to aggress against (violate the rights of) anyone else — for any reason (personal, social, or political), however worthy. That is a clearly pro-life principle. Recognizing that, and seeing the abortion-choice drift within the libertarian movement, Libertarians for Life was founded in 1976 to show why abortion is a wrong under justice, not a right.”
9. Students for Life: “Our mission: abolish abortion in our lifetime.”
10. Pro-life Pagans: “If the Life of a single tree, flower, or frog, is to be respected then why not our own? If fertility is sacred and to be celebrated in 3 festivals a year then why would we commit the opposite of life and fertility?”
I’ll stop with ten, because it’s a nice round number. I’m sure I’d find more, if I looked.UPDATE: I didn’t exactly look, but I’ve stumbled across a few more I’m going to add to the list.
11. Pro-life Liberals: “We support the right to life and quality of life both before and after birth.”
12. The New Pro-Life Movement: “The mission of the The New Pro-Life Movement (NPLM) is to reexamine what it means to be pro-life in the 21st century.”
13. The Jewish Pro-Life Foundation: “We seek to save Jewish lives by promoting alternatives to abortion in the Jewish community.“
If you are pro-choice, I hope you will stop and think the next time you assume that all women agree with you, or should agree with you just because of their gender. If you are a conventionally conservative religious pro-lifer, I hope you will find some new allies in this list and realize that it’s just as bad for YOU to assume that no one could possibly be [fill in the blank] and be against abortion.

Share this:

If you’re on Facebook you can’t escape knowing that today’s the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. If you have a diverse group of Facebook friends like I do you’ll have seen a bewildering array of contradictory posts, some commemorating the day as a tragedy, others as a triumph.

Well, I’m assuming by now you know how I view this anniversary. And I’m here to speak for the women, who, like me, don’t think the unlimited right to abortion is something to celebrate, and who are tired of hearing that “reproductive rights” is the number one women’s issue.

For want of a better way to describe myself, I’ll say I am a pro-life Democrat. I’m intelligent and well-educated, neither a religious fanatic nor a “right wing nut-job.” And I don’t call abortion a women’s issue–I call it a civil rights issue. Which means that it should be of concern to EVERYONE, not just women.

It’s a constant source of amazement (and distress) to me that people who agree with me about almost EVERYTHING else–attachment parenting, gun control, social programs, all that “bleeding heart liberal” stuff–part ways when it comes to protecting the unborn, the most helpless and voiceless of all.

Share this:

I just saw a tweet from an online acquaintance who was upset because her little kindergartner came home with the news that her classmates had told her that “Obama kills babies.”
Now that is all kinds of wrong for all kinds of reasons. Number one, it’s factually inaccurate and intellectually lazy: Mr. Obama supports legal abortion; he does not kill anyone. Number two, no five year old needs to know anything about abortion or baby-killing of ANY kind. Let’s preserve their innocence as long as we can.
And then there is number three, the subject of this post: no five-year-old came up with that language independently. Someone they trusted and respected, most likely a parent, TOLD them that. Which means that their parents have introduced inaccurate, inflammatory information into their innocent intellects in the interest of indoctrination. And that’s not how I believe we need to be talking to kids about politics.
I don’t believe in indoctrinating children. (Some of you are probably laughing because you know I am raising my kids Catholic and certainly that implies indoctrination–but moral and religious indoctrination is another story and we can argue about that another time!) What I like to do is to present kids with a variety of ideas, answer their questions, see what they come up with, and correct any misinformation.
So when the subject of the death penalty, or abortion, or any other controversial issue has come up, I’ve explained it to my kids in the most neutral way I can. Then I wait for their reaction. Most recently it has been William, age 11, learning about these things. “But that’s ridiculous,” he said of the death penalty. “That’s horrible. That doesn’t make any sense. You can’t DO that.” Even when I agree with his reaction, I offer him some of the reasons that other people disagree. I don’t want parrots. I want thoughtful critical thinkers.
My kids are–at least I think they are–extraordinarily lucky to have been raised in a home where 1) the adults don’t always agree about politics, and 2) the adults love to discuss politics. John majored in International Politics at Georgetown and is passionately interested and well-informed. I love nothing more than analytical conversations and arguments. But there has never been any danger that my kids are going to go off to school and parrot their parents’ opinions, because we don’t walk in lockstep here. We encourage them to come up with and defend their own opinions. And now that three of the kids are more or less grown up, they don’t always agree with either of us. We’ve got one kid identifying as Republican (not a Romney fan, though) and two who lean Democrat (of the pro-life type) but refuse to identify with any party.
Then there are the little ones. Several weeks ago William announced that he did not like Mitt Romney because “he doesn’t care about poor people.” I assure you, he did not hear that around here. We just don’t make over the top statements like that and we call our kids on them when they do make them, so that I told him I was sure Mr. Romney cared about poor people but that different candidates have different ideas about how to help them. I felt it was only right for balance to tell him some of President Obama’s drawbacks as well. William learned about abortion only a few months ago, even though he has been participating in Marches for Life since he sat in a stroller. He’s an oblivious sort and I was happy not to have to explain it to him. So when I told him that President Obama was pro-choice, he decided he could not support either candidate.Out of uniform patriotic attire for voting day at school
Lorelei does not know what abortion is and I have no intention of telling her any time soon. Seven is too young–too young, really, to understand most political issues. But she did sit and watch part of the debates with us until she fell asleep, and she was excited to cast a vote today in the mock election at school–for President Obama. “Why?” I asked her. “I just like him,” she said. “Well, that’s fine. It’s your choice,” I told her. She looked so dejected coming out of school today, where predictably Mr. Romney carried the day with over 80% of the vote. She perked up, though, when she got to come help me vote after school.
I read an article earlier today suggesting that we shouldn’t share our political views with our children at all until they are old enough to understand them. I don’t agree. I believe we can share in an age-appropriate way. When Lorelei asked me how I decided on my vote, I was vague: “There are things I don’t like about either candidate, that make me feel I cannot support either one.” I remember many years ago a friend of mine commented that she was surprised that we talked about politics with our kids. Politics are important. If we don’t talk to our kids about them, if all we do is say things like: “We are Democrats in this house,” or “Obama kills babies,” we are raising people who do not know how to think for themselves.
Remember, the kids who parrot you now will grow up to parrot some idiot, if you haven’t taught them to think critically. If it’s important for you for your kids to think like you do, then educate them. Tell them WHY (if you know) you think the way you do. For us, having kids who think like us isn’t the goal. The goal is having kids who THINK.

Share this:

So, feeling like you do about both Romney and Obama, who ARE you going to vote for?
That’s more or less what I was asked by a friend recently, and I promised I would be answering here. There’s going to be a long and complicated explanation before I get to the answer, though, so get comfortable. 🙂
I get the feeling that my liberal friends expect I’m going to go with Romney for “pro-life reasons.” Meanwhile my conservative Catholic friends seem convinced that I am an Obama supporter and am headed straight to hell. Gosh, it’s so inconvenient of me to get all complicated and refuse to hop into one of the little boxes we all like to put each other in.
If I were going to self-identify as a member of a political party, I’d call myself a Democrat. I’m more or less a bleeding heart liberal, if you want to know the truth. When I take that “who should you vote for” survey that’s been making the rounds this political season, I’m told I should vote for the Green Party candidate, that I agree with about 95% of her positions. Of course, as Sister Louise would have said, there’s always that 5%. And what a 5% it is.
I like President Obama. I think he’s a good man with good intentions. Pretty much everything the haters say about him isn’t true. In my opinion he’s been quite effective–it’s just that his detractors don’t approve of his achievements. Like Obamacare, which I’m excited about, even though I’d prefer a completely government-run system like the ones in Europe. (There. I said it.)
HOWEVER. Obviously, if you know me or have read pretty much anything I’ve written including the title of this blog, you know that abortion is a huge issue for me. And apparently it’s become a huge issue for our President as well, an issue on which he has come down firmly and stridently on the wrong side. That was why I did not vote for him last time. Even though I liked him more then than I do now, honestly, I just could not bring myself to push the button and thereby tacitly approve of his radically pro-choice position (and yes, I do believe he is more radical in this area than many other pro-choice politicians).
Now, I don’t think it is any way wrong or sinful to cast a vote for a pro-choice politician (if that is not your REASON for voting for him) in the presence of other proportionate reasons for your vote. I don’t rule out ever voting for a pro-choice candidate in the future. What is a proportionate reason is open to one’s prudential judgment, reached by informing one’s conscience about Church teachings, studying the issues, and ideally praying over the decision. But there are other reasons that I won’t be voting for President Obama.
Frankly, his HHS mandate INFURIATED me, and a lot of other “progressive” Catholics. So many stood with him on his health care plan BECAUSE of their Catholic faith, and then he basically spit on them. I know that a lot of you will just think I secretly hate women and don’t want them to get birth control but this is seriously a religious freedom issue, whether you believe it or not. Still, I don’t think in the end the mandate will pass constitutional muster, so it may not matter on a practical level, but it speaks to a part of the President’s character that I do not admire.
It’s the same part of his character, I believe, which has led him to quietly allow torture to continue; and to expand on his power to spy on, to imprison, to even execute Americans without trial or explanation. And I’m not going to wear myself out providing the links for all this. I’ve read and posted many over the past several weeks and can’t get anyone to even discuss them with me. Republicans like this side of Obama and don’t want to draw attention to it, and Democrats don’t like it and don’t want to draw attention to it. But someone needs to. Ditto the drone warfare, which I knew nothing about until recently. Part of what makes me call myself a Democrat is that we are supposed to be against these kinds of things.
So now let’s talk about Mr. Romney. I said before that I didn’t think Romney believes in anything but Romney, and after watching three debates and following this race pretty closely, that opinion has not changed. I just can’t think of any good reason to vote for him. I have absolutely NO CONFIDENCE that he will make any meaningful changes in abortion policy. I sincerely hope I am wrong, but let’s remember that his sister, his wife, and most recently a campaign surrogate have all more or less gone on the record saying he won’t make any changes and that this is just not a big issue for him. Yes, I know what he says himself, but he says all kinds of things all the time, half of which contradict each other–he will say anything to win. You can say–and I have actually read some comments from prominent pro-life sources that try to assert this–that his wishy-washy comments are just to get votes and he’ll hop on board the pro-life train as soon as he’s elected. But how do I know that? And don’t we want a president who is unapologetically pro-life no matter what, if that’s the only reason he’s getting our vote in the first place? Let’s not forget, too, that Mr. Romney used to be one of those “pro-life for myself, pro-choice for others” politicians, and he has a great story to back up his reasons for his stance–the botched illegal abortion that killed a young relative of his. I haven’t heard him mention her lately, have you? Wouldn’t you like to know what changed his mind?
Like I said, I’m basically a Democrat at heart, so a Republican is going to have to provide something extra to make me want to vote for him. Mr. Romney’s stance on abortion does not convince me. And I know he says he will repeal the HHS mandate, but I don’t know if I believe it. Plus as I’ve said I think it’s a moot point anyway, plus his repealing of it is tied to his repealing of Obamacare, which doesn’t exactly appeal to this uninsured American who will be spending more hard-earned money this month on medication than I can afford. Oh, and that’s hard-earned but UNTAXED money because we are part of that lowly 47% who just won’t ever take responsibility for our own lives. I suppose Mr. Romney would like us to just not claim our five dependents and reject Mr. Bush’s tax credits so that we can pay income tax in addition to the self-employment tax which we DO have to pay.
In 2008, I did not vote for President. I went to the polls and voted in the local races, but I just skipped that part.
This year, that doesn’t feel quite right. I’ve read that not voting at all is cowardly or lazy. I know I am not lazy and I hope I am not a coward. But I read another article this year that said that in voting for a candidate you are effectually agreeing with their stances, that you are complicit in what they do. And I just can’t bring myself to do that. Maybe it would be different if I lived in a swing state. But Mitt Romney takes Tennessee no matter what I do tomorrow. That gives my vote a sort of purity–it’s just between me and my conscience.
I could pick a third party candidate, like the Libertarian, who is against the drone wars and the eroding of our freedoms, or the Green Party candidate with whom I appear to largely agree, but unfortunately my areas of disagreement with both of them are in significant areas. So here is what I have decided to do.
I am going to write in “None of the Above.” I want the record to reflect that this pro-life Democrat could not find a candidate that she could in good conscience vote for. For me, that is the most honest vote, after tons of study of both secular and religious documents, much discussion and debate, and plenty of prayerful reflection.
I hope that you will respect my decision, as I plan to respect yours.UPDATE: In 2016, my conclusions are different, and I will be explaining them in a future post.

Share this:

This is Part 2 of a story which begins here. It chronicles the unforeseen results of my having had the temerity to publish a column on voting in the local Catholic press just before the 2004 elections.
I felt good about what I had written. I thought I had expressed myself well. I sat back and naively expected peace and goodwill to ensue.
That isn’t what happened.
I was working in my kitchen one morning when the phone rang. This was way before iPhones so the identity of the caller came as a complete shock. It was the Chancellor of my Diocese calling to tell me that the Bishop!! wanted me to know that he could not support everything I had written.
I am not going to try to recount that whole conversation. It was eight long years ago after all. But some parts I remember quite clearly. As I stood in my pantry staring at the shelves, the Chancellor told me that Pope John Paul’s condemnation of the Iraq war was merely his “prudential judgment.” He said that the Pope had not declared it an infallible, ex cathedra teaching. I think he might have been a bit surprised that I was able to fire back the names of the TWO (yes, only two) such pronouncements on which all theologians agree.U.S. President George W. Bush greets Pope John Paul II during their meeting at the Vatican June 4, 2004. http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040606/wd1.jpg
What I remember very clearly is the impression I was left with–that I had just been ARGUED with by a Church official about whether there might be a “Catholic” way to vote in the coming election. And I remember wondering, if it all comes down to prudential judgment, shouldn’t I, as a Catholic, give more weight to the judgment of the Holy Father than to that of any elected secular official?
Before it got better, it got a lot worse. Shortly thereafter I got another call. This time it was the Bishop himself on the other end of the line! I got the sense that he knew the first call hadn’t gone well and that he felt bad about it. His call had more of a pastoral tone. I honestly cannot remember WHAT he said, but I could tell he wanted me to feel better about the whole thing. I recall that he stated that he would be publishing something himself later to clarify the issues involved.
In those days my husband was an active Fourth Degree Knight of Columbus, and I saw the Bishop frequently at KOC events. He had always been friendly and kind and complimentary about my column in the past. So I felt bad. Very bad.
See, I consider myself to be orthodox, more so than most people I know. I take the teachings of the Church very seriously. I am not a “cafeteria Catholic.” And before I wrote that column I made sure to read the relevant parts of the Catechism and the Gospel of Life and the document the Bishops put out every election year. I had my husband read it over too. I wanted to make ABSOLUTELY sure that it reflected Church teaching.
To have someone in the hierarchy suggest differently was DEEPLY painful. (I am sorry for all the capital letters. It’s how I am feeling as I write this.) It’s still painful. I don’t feel completely comfortable publishing this, and probably would not if either of the people involved were still in the Diocese of Knoxville.
Was I wrong? And if I was wrong, was I going to have to believe that the Church could back certain voting choices? If so, would I have to follow those directions to remain a faithful Catholic? Or was I going to have to become a dissenter in order to follow my own conscience?
I didn’t like any of those options. I was in spiritual agony. I was also about eight months pregnant. Not a good combination.
I went back and reread what I had written. I read the documents again. I still couldn’t find anything wrong with what I had said. Nor could other people I trusted. Could this mean that it was the “prudential judgments” of the Bishop and the Chancellor that were in error? That was a scary thought.
In the end, though, that’s what I’ve come to believe. I stand today by what I wrote eight years ago.
But there’s more to the story. Stay tuned.

Share this:

This is an edited version of a column I wrote in the fall of 2004. At the time I was extremely disturbed by the vitriol surrounding the Presidential campaign, particularly that directed by Catholics toward other Catholics, presuming to assert that there was only one way for a good Catholic to vote. I did not remember people being so hateful about politics in the past. (Of course, things are much worse today, with Catholics routinely being assured by their brethren that they are headed straight to hell if they vote for a pro-choice candidate.) So I wrote this in the hopes of calming folks down a little bit, at least folks who read the East Tennessee Catholic.
The first time I was eligible to vote for President, when I was 21, I was away at college and did not get my absentee ballot in time. My parents and grandparents were all Democrats, and therefore so was I: no decision-making would have been necessary.
I was similarly complacent the first time I was able to cast a vote, although in the opposite direction, for George H.W. Bush. He was against abortion, the most horrible evil in the world. How could other issues matter?
Four years later other issues seemed more important than I had thought. In the most recent elections choosing a candidate has become agony. I am unwilling to equate “pro-life” with anti-abortion, so I see no “pro-life” candidate. Anyone who wages pre-emptive wars that kill up to 20,000 innocent civilians is not pro-life. John Kerry’s assertion that life begins at conception while he blithely votes to give women unlimited power to end it doesn’t sit well with me either. What’s a Catholic voter to do?
Thoughtful Catholics will come down on both sides, and if they have informed and followed their consciences, they are not sinning. But no candidate is in line with all of the Church’s moral teachings.
Although the Church gives us guidance in this matter, it does not endorse candidates. Many of you read Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s statement that when a Catholic does not share a candidate’s pro-choice stance but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered “remote material cooperation” [in evil] which is “permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.” The cardinal [later Pope Benedict] does not define the proportionate reasons, leaving us to define them ourselves.
The U.S bishops published Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility, which states: “The 2004 elections . . . pose significant challenges for our Church . . . the Church cannot be a chaplain for any one party or cheerleader for any candidate. Our cause in the protection of the weak and vulnerable and defense of human life and dignity . . . As Catholics [we are called] to recommit ourselves to carry the values of the Gospel and Church teaching into the public square . . . Faithful citizenship calls us to seek ‘a place at the table’ of life for all God’s children in the elections of 2004 and beyond . . . A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good.”
Finally, our Holy Father [Saint Pope John Paul the Great] quoted the following statement of the Second Vatican Council in The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae), a must-read for anyone who dares consider himself an authority on life issues: “Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator.”
The Pope adds: “The underlying causes of attacks on life have to be eliminated, especially by ensuring proper support for families and motherhood. A family policy must be the basis and driving force of all social policies. For this reason there need to be set in place social and political initiatives capable of guaranteeing conditions of true freedom of choice in matters of parenthood. It is also necessary to rethink labour, urban, residential and social service policies so as to harmonize working schedules with time available for the family, so that it becomes effectively possible to take care of children and the elderly.”
With the help of these experts, I have the following reflections to offer. One way to choose your candidate is to decide which issues are crucial to you and vote for the candidate who shares your perspective. If you judge abortion the ultimate issue, you could vote for the candidate who opposes it. Or you might vote based upon the amount of change you expect the candidate to be able to effect in various areas of importance. For example, if you voted for President Bush because he was pro-life the last time around, look at his record: how many lives has he saved? How much power does the President have to effect change in this area? Some voted for Bush in 2000 so he could choose Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade. But he has yet to appoint a single justice. And who can guarantee his choices would vote against abortion? Look at the records of Sandra Day O’Connor and David Souter, both appointed by conservatives.
What can a President affect in the way of life issues? He can start a war, a war our Holy Father opposed. And what about other life issues the pope enumerates in The Gospel of Life? Some “conservative” social policies may lead to more abortions, when women choose abortion because of a lack of money, homes, or childcare. There are many voter guides available online to further help you in the discernment process.
Because the Church doesn’t tell us for whom to vote, we must inform our consciences before making this important choice.
Have you fully informed yourself on the Church’s position on all life issues by reading The Gospel of Life? Have you prayerfully considered the the teachings of our bishops? Have you acquainted yourselves with the positions and records of both candidates? If so, your conscience has been properly formed, and you have nothing with which to reproach yourself. And if in charity you assume that your fellow Catholics who may have chosen a different candidate have done the same, you have nothing with which to reproach them either.My column did not have the effect I had hoped or expected. More on that in my next post.Part IIPart III

Share this:

Original source: http://www.france24.com/en/20120820-furor-over-republicans-legitimate-rape-comment
In the wake of Todd Akin’s stupid (really, I could think of a fancier word but I think that one covers it) remarks about rape and abortion, and then VP-hopeful Paul Ryan’s follow-up distancing himself from Akin and downplaying his own oft-stated convictions regarding abortion in exceptional cases, pregnancy and rape are everywhere in the news this week.
I think I have something to contribute, though, and I would like to solicit contributions from you as well, if you have something to add in the comments.
I understand, I believe, the pro-choice position on abortion, as much as I disagree with it: that a woman should have the right to decide what to do with her own body, including whether to become or to stay pregnant. And I think most pro-choice people understand the pro-life position: that abortion is wrong because the unborn is a person whose right to life cannot be trumped by its mother’s rights.
But I CANNOT understand the reasoning behind allowing exceptions for rape and incest. I challenge anyone reading this who holds those beliefs to explain them below.
Pro-lifers and even many people in the muddy middle on abortion often find themselves frustrated by radical pro-choicers who refuse to allow for any limitations on abortion: waiting periods, parental notification, banning procedures most people find repugnant, like partial-birth abortions. But abortion rights activists realize that they have to argue against these limitations because to admit limitations is also to admit that there is something unsavory about abortion, somethings serious, something that makes people uncomfortable. When President Clinton opined that abortion should be “Safe, legal, and rare,” some were uncomfortable with his language because why should it be rare if there is nothing morally wrong about it?
On the flip side, allowing exceptions for incest and rape does much more damage to a pro-life argument. After all, WHY are we against abortion? Because we believe that the unborn child is a human being from the moment of conception and therefore entitled to the protections that human dignity demands from that moment forward. With that as our premise, how can we offer an exception based on how that human person was conceived?
We can’t, not logically. But most Americans have not been trained to think critically. They are uncomfortable with abortion on some level. They are also uncomfortable with allowing suffering of any kind. They look for compromises and find them in limiting abortions to certain trimesters, and to allowing exceptions in certain circumstances.
But offering exceptions based on mode of conception is sexist, honestly. It’s saying, “Well, you poor innocent woman, you shouldn’t have to be further victimized by carrying this baby because it wasn’t your fault. But as for the rest of you sluts, you play, you pay.”

Share this:

Let’s get this straight from the very beginning. I’m not planning to vote for Rick Santorum. I disagree profoundly with most of his positions. So the defense that follows has nothing to do with my personal political leanings. It has to do instead with my passion for the truth, the same passion that leads me to consult Snopes before forwarding emails, and to risk offending people by telling them that the emails they are forwarding are LIES. And you can believe me or not, but I have even done this when the email in question supported my own prejudices.
Rick Santorum’s wife DID NOT have an abortion, no matter what you may have read to the contrary on your favorite website, or what your friend on Facebook said, no matter how much you want to believe it. Here’s what happened in my own words: Karen Santorum was about 19 weeks pregnant when her unborn baby was found to be suffering from a fatal condition. This is where a lot of people choose to terminate. Instead, the Santorums tried intrauterine surgery. Tragically, the surgery caused an infection. Mrs. Santorum had a fever of 105. Again, instead of moving straight to early induction of their non-viable baby, the Santorums tried antibiotics first. Labor started due to the infection. Mrs. Santorum even asked for drugs to stop the labor. Despite all the lies circulating on the internet, Pitocin was never administered. Baby Gabriel was born at 20 weeks and apparently lived a short while. Through this whole ordeal, the Santorums acted according to their stated principles.
Despite his admittedly strict anti-abortion/pro-life sentiments (no exceptions for rape or incest), I cannot find any evidence that Mr. Santorum ever said that abortion should be prohibited if it is necessary to save the mother’s life. Both he and his wife in fact stated that if it had come down to his wife’s death or early induction, they would have chosen induction. Mr. Santorum did sign a personhood pledge, but it provides an exception to save the mother’s life.
Here are links about the Santorums’ baby: Salon articleNPR interview
Here are more links about his position on abortion to save the mother’s life: http://www.dennyburk.com/gop-candidates-dont-allow-exceptions-for-the-life-of-a-mother/http://politics.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=23681&content=63653356&pageNum=-1
So hate Mr. Santorum (or vote against him) for being pro-life, or anti-abortion, or anti-choice if you want–I don’t really care how you express it. But don’t hate him for being a hypocrite, because he’s not.

Share this:

I’m updating and reposting this today because four years later a U.S. Senator felt it was appropriate, whether joking or not, to “pray” this prayer for our President at the Faith and Freedom conference held on June 9, 2016.So I’m taking my son and his girlfriend to the mall this morning, and find myself behind a car with the bumper sticker above. Looks like a nice Christian sentiment, right? Especially considering it was accompanied by one of those Christian fish symbols some people put on their cars (there was one on my late lamented Durango!).
I’m sorry to say, though, that in my experience many people who wear their Christianity on their sleeves (or on the back of their cars, as it were) frequently don’t appear to live up to the ideals they claim to espouse. This is certainly a case in point. A quick Google (by my son, not me–I was driving!) let us know the heart of this so-called Christian: May his days be few; may another take his office!
Yes, that’s right! The “Christian” in the car ahead of me wants us to pray that our President will die!
Lest you jump in and suggest the words are figurative, or that it means his days as POTUS should be few, go Google yourself some Bible commentary like I did, all of which made it quite clear that it is literal death that this Scripture describes.
Asking God to kill people you don’t like is not Christian, folks. You are the kind of “Christians” that give the rest of us a bad name. You know, those of us who are trying (and failing, because we are human) to do all that stuff that Jesus actually said? Stuff like “Love your enemies, do good to those who hurt you, bless those who persecute you, turn the other cheek, forgive your brother 70 times 7 times, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Don’t ask me for the chapter and verse–I’m Catholic, you know–but He said those things and you know He did. WWJD about those bumper stickers? Rip them off your smug little cars and tell you to get that plank out of your eye so you don’t have a wreck, I’m guessing.
You call yourself a Christian? Then pray, REALLY pray, for your President. Pray that he exercises wise leadership. Pray that his heart changes on certain issues–yes, like abortion. Pray, if you don’t like him, for wise leaders to arise to replace him. Pray for your country. But don’t pray for anyone’s death and then dare to call yourself a Christian.
Since I’ve decided to revisit this post, I am linking up with #WorthRevisit this week! Visit the hosts of this weekly linkup at Theology is a Verb and Reconciled to You.

Share this:

This was, I believe, my last column for the East Tennessee Catholic, published right around this time in 2010. Since this is the time of year for participating in Martin Luther King parades and Marches for Life, it seems like a good day to share it with you.

Our small delegation from Immaculate Conception’s Social Justice Committee slogged down Kingston Pike, through ankle deep puddles and muddy grass, wet to the skin. Although our participation in the annual March for Life in the face of such weather proved our dedication to the pro-life cause, it wasn’t much fun.

Less than a week earlier, we had marched in the Martin Luther King parade. Unlike the snow we had braved the prior year, we were blessed with sunny weather that made the 2.5 mile walk a pleasure, especially with all the smiling people shouting greetings and encouragement from the sidelines.

As the chair of our Social Justice Committee, I had the task of promoting both these marches. In advance of the MLK event, we shared with the congregation the words of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: “We are one human family whatever our national, racial, ethnic, economic, and ideological differences. We are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers … At the core of the virtue of solidarity is the pursuit of justice and peace.”

The following week we drew a parallel between the two marches. We reminded everyone that the achievements of the Civil Rights Movement were fueled by Dr. King’s commitment to organized non-violent protest, a philosophy he adopted from Mohandas Gandhi. Dr. King said: “The method of nonviolent resistance is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for justice and human dignity.” It is good to be reminded that we are not just marching to make ourselves feel good, but to effect change.

The proximity of these events made me wonder about Dr. King—were he alive today, would he march for the pro-life cause? Would he recognize abortion for the civil rights issue it is? I wanted to think so, but finding concrete information is difficult.

Pro-life websites claim him for our side, but can offer only indirect evidence. Pro-choice websites paint him as a certain supporter. Their argument centers around the Margaret Sanger Award, which Dr. King accepted from Planned Parenthood in 1966. But in 1966, Planned Parenthood was promoting birth control, not abortion. One of their pamphlets, published in August 1963 and titled Is Birth Control Abortion? said: “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it.”

While Dr. King is on record as supporting birth control, he cannot have known the truth about Margaret Sanger and her racist, eugenicist agenda, just as many people do not know it today. Had he done so, he surely would have refused an award which honors the woman who said of her strategy: “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” (Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts).

Advocates of King as pro-lifer point to his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail, in which he espoused natural law theory, saying : “[T]here are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all. . . . A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”

They also point to the pro-life commitment of some of his closest associates, Dr. Ralph Abernathy and Rev. Jesse Jackson (yes, until the early 1980s!) both of whom are on record as deploring abortion. In truth, many black leaders of King’s time called it genocide.

Finally, Dr. King’s niece, Alveda King, has said: “What would Martin Luther King say if he saw the skulls of babies at the bottom of abortion pits? If Martin Luther King’s dream is to live, our babies must live. ” (Martin Luther King’s Niece Supports Right To Life, Boston University Daily Free Press, 18 January 2000, p.1)

At the dedication of memorials at the Birmingham church at which her father served as pastor, she added: “The great irony,” she said, “is that abortion has done what the Klan only dreamed of.” She told a meeting of Priests for Life that the killing of a quarter of the black population of the US has not been from the lynch mobs of her childhood days, but from abortionists, “who plant their killing centers in minority neighborhoods and prey upon women who think they have no hope.”

And on that note, staying true to their founder’s ideals, Planned Parenthood has purchased a medical building at 710 Cherry Street in East Knoxville, a predominantly black neighborhood. Non-violent protest deterred them from locating in mostly-white Bearden. While not offering surgical abortions, this center prescribes the abortion pill, RU-486. Pro-life advocates from both inside and outside the neighborhood are already organizing, fostering tensions just like Dr. King in the cause of justice for the unborn.

I’m linking up this post today at the #WorthRevisit linkup. Visit there and also here to read more thought-provoking posts.

Sock Religious

Stay Close to Christ

Pink Salt Riot

Kindred Forest Co

Catholics Online

Pinterest

Follow me on Twitter

Life in Every Limb on Facebook

“The Holy Father said that he wanted to congratulate me for the words I am saying. He also called Archbishop (Jose H.) Gomez (of Los Angeles),” Bishop Seitz said, recalling the phone call. “I told him I felt it was very important at this time to show our solidarity to those who are suffering. I told him I had just come from Mass at which I was praying for him and I always do. He thanked me and said that whenever we celebrate Mass, we are praying together, he where he is and me at the border. I told him that I am very honored to serve here.”

The phone calls to prelates in the U.S. shows “that the Holy Father is aware of what’s happening in this country and is anxious for the church to be responsive in a pastoral way to participate in the response, in solidarity with those who have experienced racial discrimination,” he said. ...

It's called "taking a knee," and many professional athletes around the country have made the gesture publicly to protest police brutality. Lately, even police officers showing solidarity have kneeled around the country before those protesting the May 25 killing of George Floyd, who died after being....

"I understand that many people, for various reasons, cannot participate in rallies, and there are rallies that are very different from this one. But if you are Catholic and if you can speak out, you should, somehow or other. You should let the world know, in a way that makes sense for your station in life, that Catholics reject and revile racism." ...

Wake me up Lord, so that the evil of racismfinds no home within me.Keep watch over my heart Lord,and remove from me any barriers to your grace,that may oppress and offend my brothers and sisters.Fill my spirit Lord, so that I may giveservices of justice and peace.Clear my mind Lord, and use it for your glory.And finally, remind us Lord that you said,"blessed are the peacemakers,for they shall be called children of God."Amen.

What are your gifts and how can you bring them to bear--TODAY--on the problems facing our country? Are you a writer? A speaker? Do you have the gift of intercessory prayer or hospitality? Do you have the ability to give sacrificially?

"Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good." I Corinthians 12: 4-7

"From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more. I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled!" Luke 12:48-49 ...

"God of justice, give us the courage to admit our sins and failings. Give us the freedom to seek your mercy and reconciliation with our brothers and sisters. And give us the strength to continue crying out to you for the healing of our nation until it fulfills its commitment to recognize that you have created all people equal." ...